Paul's Letter to the Roman Christians: Introduction

[admin]

PAUL'S LETTER TO THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS

Introduction

Copyright © BRI 2016 All Rights Reserved Worldwide by Les Aron Gosling,
Messianic Lecturer (BRI/IMCF)


CAUTION: BRI Yeshiva notes are not generally provided to the general public. They are not for distribution. They are not for reproduction. The notes may also bear little or no resemblance to the actual audio or video recorded BRI Yeshiva lecture.

Please follow this link for the MP3 Audio of this Lecture: http://www.bripodcasts.com/Romans/Lecture1.MP3

"The great Rabbi Gamaliel had among his disciples one who, according to a passage in the Talmud, gave his master a good deal of trouble, manifesting 'impudence in matters of learning.' But his name is not given; he is remembered simply as 'that pupil'" (F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame, 1958, 81. See also J. Klausner, From Jesus to Paul, 1944, 310f; Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 30b).

INTRODUCTION

I wish to launch this series of lectures on Paul's Letter to the Roman Christians by stating publicly that I endeavour to approach this subject from a unique Jewish perspective. I take it as a challenge to recognise (and to encourage Gentile Christians to also discern) what it is that Paul means when he uses certain expressions which have been, until now, totally misunderstood, and which have created confusion among Christians for centuries. For 40 years I have determined that its time to distance Athens from our Christian curriculum and to elevate Jerusalem once more as we restore the lost first century Jewish thoughtform to the biblical revelation. Athens has had for far too long the preeminence in western Christian thought even allowing for the fact that Romans was penned in Greek (the language of Rome and the entirety of the Roman Empire in that same period).

For instance, few believers, apart from academics, understand what Paul means by his expression "the works of the law." Some of our students will get quite a surprise when this is detailed in this series. Another example is Paul's use of the term "hamartia" invariably translated by Gentiles as sin but which carries the far better intention of expression "sinful nature."

These lectures on Romans therefore will largely sidestep, if not altogether exclude, Western thoughtform based on Greek, and will find an accent and stress on Jewish thoughtform especially akin to that of the Second Temple period.

So let's begin!

Henry Halley, in his introduction to Paul's Letter to the Romans, explains that "Paul was chosen of God to be the chief expounder of the Gospel to the world, and his Epistle to the Romans is Paul's completest explanation of his understanding of the Gospel. Coleridge calls it, 'The most profound work in existence'" (Halley's Bible Handbook, 584).

Paul's letter is most certainly the earliest profound theological treatise on early Christianity written from Corinth in Greece in circa 57 CE. Paul was gifted by his God with an awesome intellect and legal mindscape -- the very first Christian theologian (and possibly the very first Christian, for that matter) to gaze at the bloodied tree of Golgoleth (Golgotha) and pause to ask, "Why?"

Indeed, one of the editors of the popular Harper Collins Study Bible (New Revised Standard Version) calls Romans "Paul's most sustained theological argument -- the work of a mature mind" (p.1910).

A mature mind cannot be argued against; but he was also manifestly headstrong when it came to his spiritual intentions. I have discussed Paul's clinical BPD temperament, Borderline Personality Disorder, in other lectures. (See BRI/IMCF lecture The Gospel of John [4] The Confrontational Yeshua, at War with "the Jews"?)

PAUL THE HEADSTRONG

The Lukan Acts tells us nothing about Roman Christianity except for a couple of telling incidents where converts to Christ are mentioned one of which informs us of Christians from the Imperial Capitol of the world meeting the apostle to the Gentiles as he approached the seat of Government as a prisoner (Acts 28.15,16). "This was the unforeseen result of going to Jerusalem" (Acts 21.17-25.12) again confides the editor of the above-mentioned authoritative Harper Collins Study Bible. BUT I would protest as to his choice of word "unforeseen." Paul, to the contrary, was told NOT to go to Jerusalem from the very beginning of his journey. In every city he ventured, the holy Spirit warned him (Acts 20.23). This happened in Tyre (Acts 21.4) and the dire warning was repeated in Caesarea at Philip's house (Acts 21.10,11) when a Judaean prophet bound his own hands and legs with Paul's belt (cf the "belt of truth" in Ephesians) and urged Paul to rethink his future and personal situation. Luke the physician personally pleaded with his patient not to proceed (Acts 21.12).

But, proceed he did.

But before we continue in our discourse, I think it is importune to reconsider as an aside Paul's decision to visit James (Yaakov) in Jerusalem. This aside is important to do more than just "glance" at. I include this section from my lecture Gospel of John (Lecture 4) The Confrontational Yeshua, at War with "the Jews"?, to establish this important aspect of the apostle Paul's nature and character. To obtain such an overview and perspective is vital to grasping some of Paul's perceptions as revealed in his letter to the Romans.

"After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome... For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost [or, Shavuot]... and now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: save that the holy spirit witnesses in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me... and finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem... And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's belt, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, this is what the holy Spirit says, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owns this belt, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem... and when he would not be persuaded, we ceased saying the will of the Lord be done" (Acts 19.21; 20.16,22,23; 21.4,10,11,12,14).

We see that God the Father warned Paul against his visit to Jerusalem, the holy Spirit through the agency of the Messianic Movement warned Paul about going to Jerusalem, and a wild prophet also warned against his journey to see James. But Paul was a very dogmatic and hard-nosed envoy of Mashiach -- and he saw things differently. His own spirit agitated to see James even though there was a major strain between the two individuals (and I have pursued this stage in their relations in my studious lecture series, The Real Apostle Paul. For a proper evaluation of Paul's decision to travel to Jerusalem read Acts 20 and 21 very carefully).

If Paul entertained a plan to conciliate the Jerusalem Christians under James with those believing Gentiles under his own administration his intentions may well have been honourable but Paul was doomed to fail miserably as the two sides of early Christianity, in the wider Messianic Movement, were utterly incompatible.

In this vein look very cautiously at Acts 20.22 where some translators opine that Paul was encouraged by the holy Spirit to travel to meet James in Jerusalem. Stern so translates: "And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Yerushalayim" (JNT) but Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest is more circumspect, for that which has been translated by Stern in the manner he has done so overrides the decision of the Spirit to warn Paul through the ekklesia against meeting James as we have already seen! The Spirit is NEVER in two minds about anything. God's Spirit is Sovereign, brethren! Wuest therefore translates verse 22 as:

"And now, behold, as for myself, having been completely bound in my spirit, I am proceeding to Jerusalem..." (The New Testament, An Expanded Translation).

Please note the expression, "as for myself." Paul was going to do what Paul wanted to do when Paul wanted to do it. He added, as Wuest has also conveyed: "I am proceeding to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me in it, except that the Holy Spirit in every city is bearing testimony to me, saying that bonds and afflictions are awaiting me." Yes, the Spirit told Paul that if he was to proceed to Jerusalem only "bonds and afflictions" awaited him. Yet he stubbornly did his own thing! He went against the will of the Spirit of God. Clearly, Paul had a martyrdom mania which was a fundamental characteristic of many early Christian witnesses (see the fine volume by Kate Cooper, Band of Angels. The Forgotten World of Early Christian Women, 2013, which documents the uncompromising conviction and zeal with which Christian women especially went to their deaths during pagan Roman persecution).

Paul was determined to get to Rome via Jerusalem and on the way to suffer whatever he needed to undergo in order to testify of his faith before Nero! Paul was interpreting the urgings of the Spirit as he wanted to interpret those urgings. There are many believers today who would be shocked, if not merely surprised, to be exposed to Paul's nature through the eyes of modern medical psychoanalysis. I mean no disrespect by this assessment, but God chooses His servants in accord with His purposes and not primarily because of their strong points of character and/or pleasing personalities. Paul would have been a terribly difficult personality with whom to get along -- much worse than this lecturer! And, the record concerning Paul is there in black and white for anyone to read! There can be no other way to "cut it" -- when the Greek tells us that Paul was "bound in the spirit" this, if it implies anything, is indicative of the Spirit's concern to cause the Messianic rabbi to circumvent his journey. But not Paul! Eventually the assemblies surrendered Paul to his own intentions and agenda. The KJV, and other versions which follow the 1611 icon, confuse this issue. Notice how they do so.

"And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done" (Acts 21.14).

Listen please! God did not inspire translators of the sacred texts to carve up His revelations with chapters, divisions, verses, paragraphs, commas and capitalisation of letters. These items are all patently uninspired additions to the text. The way the KJV revisionists have so translated the above text is an indication that the "church" finally got it through their heads that they were pig-ignorant of the desire of God in this matter of Jerusalem and so shrugged their fine spiritual shoulders in agreeing that whatever happened it was God's will in the matter.

I've heard it put in other ways by even some I consider to be close friends: "It's all of HaShem in any case." The Dark Lord Ahriman would agree with them. Needless to say I agree to disagree with them (and with Ahriman) on this issue. The whole issue of free will is at stake here. (Needless to say, as far as God's Salvific will is concerned, we all know the ultimate outcome, for HaShem will have His way. But we must move from A to Z with the considerable exercise of our free will and in a sense God rarely intervenes in that free exercise of our will as we progress along on our journey. Were God to do so willy-nilly what would become of the development of our character -- God's all-consuming intention of developing the Divine Nature within each of us would become at once little more than a sham or wishful thinking on God's part. It parallels the argumentative mantra of the "Eternal Hell Fire Club": if everyone is going to finally be saved what is the point of evangelism?)

Once the uninspired commas contained in Acts 21.14 are surgically removed we are left with a vastly different impression of the attitude of the early Christians who had already received confirmation by the holy Spirit that Paul was moving out of the will of HaShem! Consider the text again, with those man-inserted commas removed:

"And when he would not be persuaded we ceased saying the will of the Lord be done" (Acts 21.14).

What are we left with here once the commas are removed? The very stark opposite of what is intended in the 1611 version! The church finally got the message that Paul was moving out of the sphere of God's will for him and God was leaving the future largely up to Paul to work out for himself. It would be a rough ride and, true, ultimately God would get the result He wanted but at a frightening cost to the self-willed apostle. Instead of traveling straight from A to Z as desired by the Spirit of God, Paul would be misdirected through all the remaining letters of the alphabet before finally arriving at Z, Nero's court. The Christians stopped praying that the "will of the Lord be done" because Paul would not submit to the Spirit of God in this issue.

His headstrong and powerful will overrode the freely urged promptings and instructions of the Spirit -- and he was prone to do this on other occasions as well. It is on record by Paul's own hand that he rejected an entire city God's Spirit had led him to evangelise, opting otherwise to search out his friend and spiritual brother Titus.

"Now when I went to Troas to preach the Gospel of Messiah and found that THE LORD HAD OPENED A DOOR FOR ME, I still had no peace of mind, because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said goodbye to them and went on to Macedonia" (2 Corinthians 2.12,13).

To consider that Paul found rejection of friends difficult to cope with, psychologically plunging headlong into manic fits of depression, would be somewhat of an understatement. He had no peace of mind by his own admission in missing his friend Titus, so he diverted his attention away from the city of Troas which the holy Spirit desired the rabbi to evangelise. This incident involved a rejection of an important populated city of myriads choosing instead to forsake those thousands of souls in order to find one lone individual instead.

And thus we have the history of Paul in Acts. He did finally get to meet Caesar. He did proclaim the Gospel. And he ultimately perished, but not in the way most Christians acknowledge. I will discuss Paul's second Roman imprisonment at the conclusion of this series.

PROBLEMS WITH ROMANS

I want to say this about our current versions of Romans. The version we have now may not necessarily be the same as the ancient "church" received. This is due to the fact that some ancient copies end at Romans 15.33. If you take a glance at this verse you will see that it forms a natural conclusion to the letter. Arguments persist by some scholars that the entire 16th chapter was originally a very short epistle, or part of an epistle, Paul had penned to the Ephesians and which was later added as an appendage to Romans.

My view is slightly different. I think the early "church" had shorter versions of this letter (which were abbreviated from a larger record) and which shorter mss circulated as a general epistle to various assemblies necessarily omitting Paul's reference to Rome in Romans 1.7.

As I have written in another place, it was most certainly the case that the apostle John had previously created a number of short proto-gospels in circulation for some years which were later edited by him and turned into the Gospel of John. So, the established "church" in the early second century had available, at least in principal, a prime example to emulate as Romans circulated around the Mediterranean world.

While my approach (shared by a number of other biblical scholars) provides an entirely satisfactory solution to this problem, there is of course a much more insidious textual aberration that I need (once again) to stress. I have mentioned this problem in previous lectures including the series entitled The Overwriting of the New Testament Corpus. This matter involves taking a text and mangling it in order to serve the interests of a morally perverted king of England and Scotland. I speak of Romans 8.1.

In some versions of the letter to the Romans we read this: "There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" (Romans 8.1).

All of my students, both local and international, know well the depth of personal conviction that I carry in my heart and intellect on the subject of eternal salvation in relation to believers who authentically acknowledge and accept Yeshua as Lord and Saviour. Now they may not carry in their travels the same identical convictions that I do, and they may appear to some as outright heretics. But no matter to me. It's not doctrine that unites fellow believers. It's faith. And more than faith, it's the shed blood of Christ the Son of God that binds us together by His Spirit. And that Spirit is the Spirit of Grace. Grace is and remains the character of the creative process.

There are innumerable Christian denominations that disagree with our belief in an ultimate universal salvation, and eternal security for the believer in this life. Concerning the latter instance, they quote Romans 8.1 as teaching a dependency of good works relative to the constancy of our salvation. Certainly, I have used this text myself quite often but with the diametric opposite intention of encouraging faith, granting peace of mind, and lifting our sometimes fledgling spirits. Romans 8.1 as it appears in the original Greek certainly DOES witness with our spirits that we are the children of God.

And that is precisely WHY the Dark Lord has tampered with it and has used his agents to alter it over the years.

As it appears in the KJV (or, AV) it reads: "Now therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit."

However, the vast overwhelming majority of modern versions and transliterations from the Greek now translate, "Now therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus [Messiah Yeshua]." PERIOD!

Consider this: if we accept the additional part relative to works (i.e., "who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit") we have, in effect, made Paul completely turn around his ENTIRE argument in his letter to the Romans -- which until this point has been revolving ENTIRELY around what Messiah has accomplished FOR us on OUR behalf, to what is contingent upon man to add to Messiah's salvation (deliverance).

Notice Paul starts his statement in Romans 8.1 with the word "THEREFORE" (in the Greek text). I personally think Christians should read what has gone before to see the reason "therefore" is "there for." "Therefore" is the summing up of an argument.

Paul's argument in his letter to the Romans is all about the ineptitude and outright failure of men and women to attain to righteousness. In fact, Paul argues that as Yeshua died for all humankind the entire world was justified (Romans 5.8-10). That is the totality of the world, not merely the church. Paul's argument is centred in God's Grace, not man's works (not even works by the holy Spirit in us).

Modern scholarship (last 50 years) is such that the majority of versions and translations now available (which I possess) drop the latter phrase altogether and assert majority mss as the reason. You see, the latter qualification in Romans 8.1 comes from later mss. It was originally included as a margin addition. If any modern versions include it, its usually in italics (see for example the Amplified Version, which admits Romans 8.1 latter section of the verse is "omitted now [1958] because... not adequately supported by more recent scholarship"). J.N. Darby is emphatic: "it cannot be translated as in the Auth[orised] Ver[sion]" (The Holy Bible Translated From the Original Texts, n. Romans 8.1).

Comments Professor Wuest: "The words 'who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit' are rejected by both Nestle [Greek text] and Wescott and Hort. Paul does not base his assertion of no condemnation to the saint upon the saint's conduct, but upon his position in Christ. His position in Christ has liberated him from the compelling power of the evil nature and made him a partaker of the divine nature, a new inner condition which produces in every saint a life which has for its motive, obedience to His commandments. In other words, it is what God has made the believing sinner that insures the fact that there is no cause for condemnation in him" (Kenneth Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament, 127 Emphasis mine).

Marvin Vincent: "'who walk not' etc., The best texts omit to the end of the verse" (Word Studies in the New Testament, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol.lll, 85).

One becomes suspicious of Romans 8.1b when we note the exact same phrase a little later in Romans 8.4. This is because Gentile scribes (not trained Jewish scribes who were noted for their astonishing accuracy) copied the Scriptures by hand. Scribes, of course, were subject to error. In the case of Jewish scribes who made a mistake, they did not eliminate it, but simply noted the mistake in the margin and continued. Gentile scribes copied this practice too, but sometimes added their own thoughts as they went on, some of them without doubt arguing for "holy Spirit" inspiration (the 1 John 5.7 fiasco springs immediately to mind).

In the Lectures of Alva McClain I found this notation on Romans 8.1 which might prove enlightening....

"Perhaps a scribe read the verse as it was in the original and thought to himself, 'If I leave it that way, folks are apt to take it that way and live in sin. I must protect God a little bit.' And so he may have added that phrase in the margin; and then another scribe concluded that it had been accidentally omitted and placed it in the text. On the other hand, the scribe may have had a wandering eye, and accidentally picked up and repeated the clause in verse 4. Nevertheless, since that time [modern scholars] have found many older manuscripts and not one has that clause in it.... What God has intended to do [in Romans] is to give us assurance, and He points us to Christ Jesus" (Alva J. McClain, Romans: The Gospel of God's Grace, 1973, 164).

In my view, McClain -- who belonged to Christ in the Grace Brethren Church (unrelated to the Plymouth Brethren) and who founded Grace Theological Seminary and Grace College -- is absolutely correct when he focuses on Paul's intention of arguing for God's Salvific assurance toward believers. For, the fact is, the moment we look at that last phrase we look inward to our feelings for confirmation, and the moment we look inward to our feelings for confirmation we lose assurance. This observation was not lost on Alva McClain, though it appears to be on some "believers" who desperately want assurance of their "being in" Messiah. McClain and others, however, wanting to think well of others (kings, scribes etc) are not really doing justice to truth when it comes to the real reason why King James wanted the additional constraints added to the text of Romans 8.1.

I believe that there is something really sinister at work here because as soon as we add "who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" to Romans 8.1 we completely negate Paul's entire theme, text and topic, and his progressive ARGUMENT concerning both our PERSONAL liberty and LEGAL standing in Messiah which the Rabbi has been building in his formidable intellectual exercise of the previous chapter 7.

Romans 7 sums up Romans 1-6. Paul increasingly negates any human work as acceptable to God in matters pertaining to justification and salvation. He underscores the utter unworthiness of humankind to please God. Paul goes to enormous lengths to even discredit himself in relation to ANY Salvific achievements, denigrating his NATURE and WILL to properly respond to God the Father. Then, suddenly and topsy-turvy, he speaks of the human will attaining to salvation by a concerted cooperative effort made with the holy Spirit to achieve (and sustain) that Salvific end. It's a nonsense when KJV supporters try to argue for the retention of these disgusting additional words to the text. The bottom line is that they are stating by inference, if not openly, that Our Lord Yeshua died for nothing. They wouldn't care to put it in those words as I just did but it's the bottom line.

By insisting on these additional qualifications in Romans 8.1, King James tears away the fabric and foundation of Romans 7, and Rav Shaul's case falls apart in its blatant contradiction. Assurance of salvation has given way to a predilection toward uncertainty, apprehension, negative anticipation (as we look to the flesh) and to outright fear.

By intransigently upholding this false apex, scholars fly in the face of the sacred words of Our Lord himself who said "Emphatically, absolutely, I say unto you, He that hears my word and believes on him that sent me HAS everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation but is passed out of death unto THE life" (John 5.24 Gk).

Some scholars fail to grasp that NOTHING can separate us from God's love. NOTHING. If we possess the Ruach HaKodesh -- and He possesses us -- we are accepted in the Beloved Mashiach. But NOT BECAUSE of our possession of the Spirit. Rather, the Spirit indwells us SOLELY BECAUSE of what Yeshua has accomplished on our behalf which reached an apex on the bloodied tree of Golgoleth. The empty tomb is God's validation of His Son and the validation of our salvation. Yeshua's life, death, and resurrection have been imputed to each of us, and so has his ascension. He was crucified for us (in our place), and he bled and died for us (in our place). All Our Lord Yeshua has EXTRINSICALLY imputed to us of the TOTALITY of his human life experience, and death experience, and now his NEW RESURRECTED LIFE experience, GUARANTEES our right standing in God the Father's eyes. God does not see us, when He considers us, rather He sees Yeshua.

The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, enters our being at conversion, an INTRINSIC act. The Holy Spirit SANCTIFIES us. This is an intrinsic act also. But sanctification (the indwelling of the holy Spirit) cannot save anyone. We are saved, not by an INTRINSIC ACT, even an act of the very Holy Spirit of God, but by a LEGAL EXTRINSIC DECLARATION of Yeshua's imputed Righteousness. Justification is entirely a LEGAL matter, and not an emotional and/or intrinsic one.

Our ASSURANCE is in no way based upon ANY works we can do, works of righteousness or (in the event) works of human error. None of us are even capable of "working up" salvation-faith, and none of us are capable of maintaining (or even possessing) a right attitude of mind toward all things pertaining to God. Not even works by the precious holy Spirit indwelling us can save us. Our assurance is IN Messiah Yeshua, and in Him alone.

Rav Shaul perfectly summed it all up in one phrase: "Mashiach, our righteousness" (1 Corinthians 1.30; "YHWH Tsidkenu" in Jeremiah 23.6).

Any other "righteousness" is as a "soiled menstrual cloth" (Isaiah 64.6 Hebrew). Romans 8.1b (AV) must be discredited and the unfruitful works of darkness exposed (Ephesians 5.11) to the spiritual mind. Anything less than Christ's righteousness becomes, as far as God the Father is concerned, something urgently to be discarded -- forever.

THIS CONCLUDES LECTURE 1

Have you been spiritually edified with this lecture? Would you like to know more about the biblical revelation from such a unique perspective? Our private BRI/IMCF International Internet Yeshiva Members Forum has hundreds of in-depth lectures available for those who subscribe to the IMCF. Membership is entirely by donation and Messianic Enterprises has provided a PIN PAYMENT icon for your convenience which you can access on the front page of the public BRI/IMCF site at:

http://www.biblicalresearchinstitute.com.au/

Just depress the Pay Now icon and within days your request for International Messianic Community of Faith (IMCF) membership will be acknowledged.

Thank you for becoming supportive of this growing unique Work of God and for allowing us to serve you in this manner.